+- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html)
+---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html)
+---- Thread: Debate about Gun Control (/thread-194.html)
RE: Debate about Gun Control - Eric the Green - 10-23-2017
(10-22-2017, 08:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-22-2017, 10:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: Have you actually seen the video of any of these shootings? In one, a cop approaches a car at a traffic stop, pulls his weapon then shoots ... about 10 seconds later. There were no signs of aggression, but the guy did have a fully legal handgun in the car, and possessed a concealed-carry permit. There was plenty of time to think things through, but it didn't happen. I doubt the cop wanted to shoot the guy. He was being filmed by his own dash-cam.Is that the one that happened in my area? If it is, I saw that one in its entirety. We didn't see what was going on with the person in the car. We didn't see what was going on in the mind of the person in the car either. We heard an officer tell the person not to move or make any sudden moves and then we heard a bunch shots and we heard the voice of the officer explaining to the passenger the reason for the shooting of the driver. I know the cop didn't want to shoot the guy. How much time do you need to think things through? Less than 10 seconds? I bet I kill you if I wanted to in less than 10 seconds. So, you better be able to think through without reacting the wrong way in the minds of blues within 5 seconds or less. Sound reasonable to you and sound like a reasonable rule to apply to cops. Now, keep in mind, I don't give a fuck whether blues continue to have police forces or not at this point. Blues don't deserve them in my opinion. I've yet to see a blue who I'd view as being worth placing my life at risk or dying for or worth dealing with all the shit that seems to occur in their areas. I have no doubt that cops would be much happier and feel much more appreciated in redder areas.
Stats prove that red states and counties are more prone to crime and violence than blue states and counties, because in blue states people get what they need as opposed to being left on their own. It doesn't matter if some parts of cities (all cities are blue) have more violence or not; on the whole, places with blue governments are safer than those with red governments.
I think it was in Oklahoma and Louisiana where last year I think it was some crazed idiots deliberately went after and shot cops. But a cop shooting a black guy who is not doing anything threatening, is violating his civil rights and is being a murderer. That destroys civil rights for all of us. Red-staters demand that citizens be armed, and then wonder why cops need to be armed. Then, when cops shoot someone without cause, they see that (s)he gets off scot free. What we have, under current red-state control, is a country that is unsafe, and in which people have no rights.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - Galen - 10-24-2017
(10-22-2017, 01:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...and let's remember: one of the strongest deterrents to crime is this:
![[Image: Dobermann_Black_and_Tan_%22Vito%22.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Dobermann_Black_and_Tan_%22Vito%22.jpg)
Actually I have found that particular breed to be a bit unstable. Here is a much better deterrent.
![[Image: Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg]](http://rottclub.ca/cms/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/Redwood-Krests-Wolfgang.jpg)
This guy breaks bones when he bites and yet is surprisingly good around children. In fact, much better with the kids than your choice. His main advantage is being at home when you are not but I still like keeping firearms around to deal with problems.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - pbrower2a - 10-24-2017
(10-24-2017, 02:29 AM)Galen Wrote:(10-22-2017, 01:17 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...and let's remember: one of the strongest deterrents to crime is this:
Actually I have found that particular breed to be a bit unstable. Here is a much better deterrent.
This guy breaks bones when he bites and yet is surprisingly good around children. In fact, much better with the kids than your choice. His main advantage is being at home when you are not but I still like keeping firearms around to deal with problems.
A large percentage of gun deaths are suicides. One of the side benefits of dogs as protection is that someone with a dog is much less likely to commit suicide.
The Rottweiler is one of the oldest breeds of dogs, one around since Roman times. It looks as lethal as one of the usual animal stars (except for horses) at the Colosseum; this is the backing to the warning CAVE CANEM. The Romans didn't have lower case letters, but they certainly had dogs. With this dog around, being a burglar was about as dangerous as being a Christian during the worst persecutions, and for much the same reason. I look at that dog and I think 'man-eater' except for the good behavior of both of us. Considering that a dog will eat just about anything that was recently alive, I wouldn't rule out human flesh as something on its potential menu.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - David Horn - 10-24-2017
(10-22-2017, 07:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-22-2017, 10:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is the exact problem you fail to understand. Unless you are trained to overcome the loss of your bearings that occurs in high stress situations, they tend to grow worse rather than better. Adrenaline is good for fight or flight, but not for rational decision making. I had this same discussion with 'nihilist moron' on the old forum. She wisely decided to stay away from that topic.
On what would you base your expectations, just to be clear about it? My experience is 180 degrees counter to your belief. Here's why. Unless you arrive with the full expectation that a shooter will target the area, you will be surprised when the shooting starts. The adrenaline kicks in, but you, having no training to channel that in a positive way, will get hyperactive and disoriented. What follows at that point is hard to predict, but it's less likely to go well than badly.
FWIW, I attended the Special Forces Training Center on Okinawa during my sojourn in the Army. We were expecting to be attacked during our various training exercises, but they still came as a surprise every time. Wisely, only the guy on point had live ammo, or some of us may have spent a lot longer on the island.
I assume Rani figured she wasn't going to convince you otherwise and she decided it wasn't worth it to continue the effort with you. Me, I don't approach you with the intent to convince of anything that you don't believe in or view as important. You're a bit to block headed/close minded to convince that their view of things or belief of things could be wrong. The next time something horrible happens, I'd suggest you pay more attention to the stories of regular folks who were able to over come the initial shook, regain their bearings and take part in heroic deeds without any official training. We see it, hear of it, are made aware of it occurring during every major crisis/accident but according to you that doesn't/can't/won't/shouldn't happen unless a person is/has been trained. I'm glad that I wasn't raised by blues or indoctrinated by blues because I wouldn't have amounted to much of anything at this point.
Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote. Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire. Still, some successes do occur. So do suicides. Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - pbrower2a - 10-24-2017
(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:(10-22-2017, 07:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-22-2017, 10:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is the exact problem you fail to understand. Unless you are trained to overcome the loss of your bearings that occurs in high stress situations, they tend to grow worse rather than better. Adrenaline is good for fight or flight, but not for rational decision making. I had this same discussion with 'nihilist moron' on the old forum. She wisely decided to stay away from that topic.
On what would you base your expectations, just to be clear about it? My experience is 180 degrees counter to your belief. Here's why. Unless you arrive with the full expectation that a shooter will target the area, you will be surprised when the shooting starts. The adrenaline kicks in, but you, having no training to channel that in a positive way, will get hyperactive and disoriented. What follows at that point is hard to predict, but it's less likely to go well than badly.
FWIW, I attended the Special Forces Training Center on Okinawa during my sojourn in the Army. We were expecting to be attacked during our various training exercises, but they still came as a surprise every time. Wisely, only the guy on point had live ammo, or some of us may have spent a lot longer on the island.
I assume Rani figured she wasn't going to convince you otherwise and she decided it wasn't worth it to continue the effort with you. Me, I don't approach you with the intent to convince of anything that you don't believe in or view as important. You're a bit to block headed/close minded to convince that their view of things or belief of things could be wrong. The next time something horrible happens, I'd suggest you pay more attention to the stories of regular folks who were able to over come the initial shock, regain their bearings and take part in heroic deeds without any official training. We see it, hear of it, are made aware of it occurring during every major crisis/accident but according to you that doesn't/can't/won't/shouldn't happen unless a person is/has been trained. I'm glad that I wasn't raised by blues or indoctrinated by blues because I wouldn't have amounted to much of anything at this point.
Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote. Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire. Still, some successes do occur. So do suicides. Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.
I would not trust myself with a gun under such a circumstance unless the situation is completely unambiguous, like a stranger raping my daughter or granddaughter and giving me a clear shot at the offender without putting the life of an innocent person at risk. I would have more concern about the trauma that my daughter or granddaughter from watching someone die than about killing a threat to a loved one, let alone the risk that I would miss the rapist and kill or maim the innocent victim of a crime.
But that is a highly-scripted circumstance. Many scenarios that first look like self-defense that result in lethal gunfire do not involve a crime. But note well: if those result in an accidental death they are still homicide. If one is not a sociopath, one could feel very guilty of killing a loved one, a friend, or a neighbor in a gross error that is dismissed as a non-culpable homicide.
I have also heard of circumstances in which someone had a gun 'for defense', and the criminal wrested the gun away and used the gun against the failed self-defender.
The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - Classic-Xer - 10-25-2017
(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote. Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire. Still, some successes do occur. So do suicides. Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.I don't believe eliminating the 2nd Amendment would significantly reduce the amount of suicides. I don't believe it would have much, if any impact on the amount of suicide deaths. People who really want to kill themselves will kill themselves one way or another even if there isn't a gun around to do it wit . I don't know anyone who killed themselves with a gun. Every person that I knew who killed themselves, killed themselves without one. I actually knew quite a few of them (at least 20 or more since graduating from high school). Keep in mind, I went to school with thousands of kids who were about the same age as me.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - Classic-Xer - 10-25-2017
(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:I've got a big dog and I've got a gun around to back him up and protect him with. Geez, only a liberal would place more value on the life of a criminal than they do on the life of the family dog.(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote:(10-22-2017, 07:29 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-22-2017, 10:21 AM)David Horn Wrote: This is the exact problem you fail to understand. Unless you are trained to overcome the loss of your bearings that occurs in high stress situations, they tend to grow worse rather than better. Adrenaline is good for fight or flight, but not for rational decision making. I had this same discussion with 'nihilist moron' on the old forum. She wisely decided to stay away from that topic.
On what would you base your expectations, just to be clear about it? My experience is 180 degrees counter to your belief. Here's why. Unless you arrive with the full expectation that a shooter will target the area, you will be surprised when the shooting starts. The adrenaline kicks in, but you, having no training to channel that in a positive way, will get hyperactive and disoriented. What follows at that point is hard to predict, but it's less likely to go well than badly.
FWIW, I attended the Special Forces Training Center on Okinawa during my sojourn in the Army. We were expecting to be attacked during our various training exercises, but they still came as a surprise every time. Wisely, only the guy on point had live ammo, or some of us may have spent a lot longer on the island.
I assume Rani figured she wasn't going to convince you otherwise and she decided it wasn't worth it to continue the effort with you. Me, I don't approach you with the intent to convince of anything that you don't believe in or view as important. You're a bit to block headed/close minded to convince that their view of things or belief of things could be wrong. The next time something horrible happens, I'd suggest you pay more attention to the stories of regular folks who were able to over come the initial shock, regain their bearings and take part in heroic deeds without any official training. We see it, hear of it, are made aware of it occurring during every major crisis/accident but according to you that doesn't/can't/won't/shouldn't happen unless a person is/has been trained. I'm glad that I wasn't raised by blues or indoctrinated by blues because I wouldn't have amounted to much of anything at this point.
Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote. Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire. Still, some successes do occur. So do suicides. Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.
I would not trust myself with a gun under such a circumstance unless the situation is completely unambiguous, like a stranger raping my daughter or granddaughter and giving me a clear shot at the offender without putting the life of an innocent person at risk. I would have more concern about the trauma that my daughter or granddaughter from watching someone die than about killing a threat to a loved one, let alone the risk that I would miss the rapist and kill or maim the innocent victim of a crime.
But that is a highly-scripted circumstance. Many scenarios that first look like self-defense that result in lethal gunfire do not involve a crime. But note well: if those result in an accidental death they are still homicide. If one is not a sociopath, one could feel very guilty of killing a loved one, a friend, or a neighbor in a gross error that is dismissed as a non-culpable homicide.
I have also heard of circumstances in which someone had a gun 'for defense', and the criminal wrested the gun away and used the gun against the failed self-defender.
The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - Galen - 10-25-2017
(10-25-2017, 01:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:I've got a big dog and I've got a gun around to back him up and protect him with. Geez, only a liberal would place more value on the life of a criminal than they do on the life of the family dog.
The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
That is a typical liberal, sacrifice a person or an animal for their benefit. These days that would probably get you sued by the animal rights people.
As a practical manner, some of us live in places too small for a dog of useful size. Dogs are pretty high maintenance and there are a great many places that won't allow you to take a dog. Come to think of it, many apartment buildings will not let you keep a dog. In that case I find a hand cannon to be quite useful and necessary.
As for the suicides, they will just find another even messier and more painful way to take themselves out. A tragedy to be sure but they are only a threat to themselves.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - pbrower2a - 10-25-2017
(10-25-2017, 02:11 AM)Galen Wrote:(10-25-2017, 01:59 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-24-2017, 12:15 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:I've got a big dog and I've got a gun around to back him up and protect him with. Geez, only a liberal would place more value on the life of a criminal than they do on the life of the family dog.
The creature above is far safer than a firearm, except perhaps to a criminal. With this dog, burglars (many of them rapists) are meat. It can read people for bad intentions, and it knows who does not belong where by scent.
That is a typical liberal, sacrifice a person or an animal for their benefit. These days that would probably get you sued by the animal rights people.
As a practical manner, some of us live in places too small for a dog of useful size. Dogs are pretty high maintenance and there are a great many places that won't allow you to take a dog. Come to think of it, many apartment buildings will not let you keep a dog. In that case I find a hand cannon to be quite useful and necessary.
As for the suicides, they will just find another even messier and more painful way to take themselves out. A tragedy to be sure but they are only a threat to themselves.
1. The dog has far better night vision than we do, and more acute hearing.
2. A terrier may be 'only' an ankle-biter... but that painful ankle bite can force a fall.
3. Your loaded gun poses a danger to the family dog just as it does to any loved one.
4. The gun is the easiest, fastest, and most reliable way with which to commit suicide. There is no 'neat, clean suicide' any more than there is a 'neat, clean coronary'. Any delay in committing a suicide, such as having to buy a gun and go through the hoops of background checks might give someone time in which to think of doing something else.
I have been there. I had a visit by the police after I said a few things about putting an end to a nasty, unpromising situation in life and debasing the value that many people put on life.
5. A criminal can turn your gun against you if he gets to you before you do. But if he gets to your dog before you do, he stands to be mauled.
6. It is telling that one of the first regulations that the Nazis imposed upon Jews was a ban on their ownership of dogs. Cats were OK, but dogs might deliver nasty bites to the Gestapo or the SS when it came time to haul off the Jews to prison or the camps.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - David Horn - 10-25-2017
(10-25-2017, 01:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-24-2017, 11:51 AM)David Horn Wrote: Yes: the infamous proof by anecdote. Ask a combat vet about the highest risk times he or she served, and one will very likely be the first time they came under fire. Still, some successes do occur. So do suicides. Here's a recent column by a conservative writer who cited that as one reason he opposes the 2nd Amendment.
I don't believe eliminating the 2nd Amendment would significantly reduce the amount of suicides. I don't believe it would have much, if any impact on the amount of suicide deaths. People who really want to kill themselves will kill themselves one way or another even if there isn't a gun around to do it wit . I don't know anyone who killed themselves with a gun. Every person that I knew who killed themselves, killed themselves without one. I actually knew quite a few of them (at least 20 or more since graduating from high school). Keep in mind, I went to school with thousands of kids who were about the same age as me.
I think Stephen's point has more to do with Sanctity of Guns we wrapped around this issue. By making it a right, rather than a privilege, we pretend that having guns is the moral equivalent of the many freedoms found in the other 9 amendments we call the Bill of Rights. We need some oversight, but seem unable to get any. And to your point that suicides will happen regardless, most failed suicides never try again. Attempts by firearm tend to be deadly on the first try.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - David Horn - 10-25-2017
(10-22-2017, 08:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-22-2017, 10:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: Have you actually seen the video of any of these shootings? In one, a cop approaches a car at a traffic stop, pulls his weapon then shoots ... about 10 seconds later. There were no signs of aggression, but the guy did have a fully legal handgun in the car, and possessed a concealed-carry permit. There was plenty of time to think things through, but it didn't happen. I doubt the cop wanted to shoot the guy. He was being filmed by his own dash-cam.
Is that the one that happened in my area? If it is, I saw that one in its entirety. We didn't see what was going on with the person in the car. We didn't see what was going on in the mind of the person in the car either. We heard an officer tell the person not to move or make any sudden moves and then we heard a bunch shots and we heard the voice of the officer explaining to the passenger the reason for the shooting of the driver. I know the cop didn't want to shoot the guy. How much time do you need to think things through? Less than 10 seconds? I bet I kill you if I wanted to in less than 10 seconds. So, you better be able to think through without reacting the wrong way in the minds of blues within 5 seconds or less. Sound reasonable to you and sound like a reasonable rule to apply to cops. Now, keep in mind, I don't give a fuck whether blues continue to have police forces or not at this point. Blues don't deserve them in my opinion. I've yet to see a blue who I'd view as being worth placing my life at risk or dying for or worth dealing with all the shit that seems to occur in their areas. I have no doubt that cops would be much happier and feel much more appreciated in redder areas.
You miss the point. No one should be carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle. In fact, it used to be illegal. In most states, you were required to place the weapon in the trunk or the glove box at the very least. But now: Rights!
This isn't going well, is getting worse by the day, and shows no signs of changing. Already, the NRA is backing away from control of bump-stocks. Is nothing involving firearms 'going too far'?
RE: Debate about Gun Control - noway2 - 10-25-2017
(10-25-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote: You miss the point. No one should be carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle. In fact, it used to be illegal. In most states, you were required to place the weapon in the trunk or the glove box at the very least. But now: Rights!
This isn't going well, is getting worse by the day, and shows no signs of changing. Already, the NRA is backing away from control of bump-stocks. Is nothing involving firearms 'going too far'?
It never should have been "illegal" to carry a gun in a car. The 2nd-A is very easy to understand. Prohibitions on things like carrying in a car, or even in places like schools are an infringement. No amount of playing word salad games and dancing around the issue changes that. Gun control / gun restrictions, whatever you want to call them ARE going to far.
RE: Debate about Gun Control - Classic-Xer - 10-25-2017
(10-25-2017, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote:What made him think that he needed to have one? I don't know much about the guy other than personal stuff relating to him at the time of the shooting. Did he live in a bad part of town or live near a bad part of town or something? I don't know for sure. I could only assume based on his race and knowledge of where the majority of people of the same race as him tend to live in Twin Cities. BTW, I'd have a license to carry and a legal gun on me too if I lived in or lived near the bad parts of the Twin Cities.(10-22-2017, 08:19 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(10-22-2017, 10:32 AM)David Horn Wrote: Have you actually seen the video of any of these shootings? In one, a cop approaches a car at a traffic stop, pulls his weapon then shoots ... about 10 seconds later. There were no signs of aggression, but the guy did have a fully legal handgun in the car, and possessed a concealed-carry permit. There was plenty of time to think things through, but it didn't happen. I doubt the cop wanted to shoot the guy. He was being filmed by his own dash-cam.
Is that the one that happened in my area? If it is, I saw that one in its entirety. We didn't see what was going on with the person in the car. We didn't see what was going on in the mind of the person in the car either. We heard an officer tell the person not to move or make any sudden moves and then we heard a bunch shots and we heard the voice of the officer explaining to the passenger the reason for the shooting of the driver. I know the cop didn't want to shoot the guy. How much time do you need to think things through? Less than 10 seconds? I bet I kill you if I wanted to in less than 10 seconds. So, you better be able to think through without reacting the wrong way in the minds of blues within 5 seconds or less. Sound reasonable to you and sound like a reasonable rule to apply to cops. Now, keep in mind, I don't give a fuck whether blues continue to have police forces or not at this point. Blues don't deserve them in my opinion. I've yet to see a blue who I'd view as being worth placing my life at risk or dying for or worth dealing with all the shit that seems to occur in their areas. I have no doubt that cops would be much happier and feel much more appreciated in redder areas.
You miss the point. No one should be carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle. In fact, it used to be illegal. In most states, you were required to place the weapon in the trunk or the glove box at the very least. But now: Rights!
This isn't going well, is getting worse by the day, and shows no signs of changing. Already, the NRA is backing away from control of bump-stocks. Is nothing involving firearms 'going too far'?